"For the Minuteman ICBM force, the US Air Force's Strategic Air Command worried that in times of need the codes would not be available, so they quietly decided to set them to 00000000; checking this combination was even present on the launch checklists. This was not changed until 1977."
Security is always a comprise between protection and accessibility. The USAF, rightly or wrongly, thought that the requirement the codes prevented them from doing their job (responding to a nuke attack).
Protection? What does 'protection' even mean (in this context)? Confidentiality, integrity, and availability are the most basic tenets of security. In the parent's case accessibility is held above integrity.
Yeah and many hackers types that have worked around WMDs knew how they could do such and such, but that's why there's the PRP (Personnel Reliability Program) program, psychological interviews, polygraphs (yeah yeah, not scientific), and security clearances and background checks.
Speaking of potential psychological issues, what about General Powers, head of SAC at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, who was fond of statements like:
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
He's seems to be one of the few people who was actually enthusiastic about the prospects of starting a (very one sided) nuclear war.
Being crazy gets you leverage on the negotiation table. Seeming measured and rational and restrained oftentimes gets you into trouble. See Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis, for instance. There's no way that'd happen under a more aggressive President, like FDR or Nixon or GW.
As the Romans said - "Si vis pacem, para bellum." - "If you wish peace, prepare for war." Pacifistic, restrained military and civilian leadership paradoxically can invite violence against you.
Even Curtis Le May was worried about the psychological state of General Powers describing him as "not stable" and a "sadist".
There is credible deterrence and there is dangerous lunacy - Powers appears to have been uncomfortably close to the latter. Especially when he was wanting to initiate a strike which would probably have killed rather more than a billion people.
Being crazy gets you leverage on the negotiation table. Seeming measured and rational and restrained oftentimes gets you into trouble. See Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis, for instance. There's no way that'd happen under a more aggressive President, like FDR or Nixon or GW.
[citation needed]
... the entire "madman theory" of coercion was flawed in its essence, depending as it did on twisted logic that assumed an adversary would respond to a calculated show of irrationality with something other than irrationality of its own. [1]
In that article you can see what kind of danger unchecked assumptions and arrogance can lead people into, specially when these traits are carried by people with access to WMD.
I think that this is actually pretty good use of security by obscurity. You cannot prevent well motivated and capable attacker from launching unauthorized nuclear strike by purely technical means.
Well probably anything related to "tamper proof" security (defending against attacker who has full uncontrolled access to "secure" device) of anything is security by obscurity at best (security of such commercial products is often based on that each device uses unique configuration of countermeasures) and pure snake oil more often.
In this case whole security of this system really relies on people (and their belief that there are some technical security measures that they cannot trivially circumvent) and focusing on technical means too much would actually divert resources to something that is actually not possible to do perfectly. USAF probably correctly assumed that relying on people is better approach. I remember that some (probably DoD-sponsored, in relation to WMD security) study asserted that only meaningful way to protect system from well funded and motivated attackers is to not let such attackers near the system (presumably by means of guarding it).
Well, I don’t think my eyes have ever bugged out so much over an HN submission title!
⁂
> The Presidential identification (ID) codes … could delay implementation long enough to prevent a rapid response
To me, a naïve human who doesn’t want to see a nuclear winter, it seems that we should be optimizing for human life instead of immediate revenge. I would even dare to hope the response to a nuclear launch would be to roll over and surrender for the greater good. And while I’m no expert in game theory, I suppose the official line is that guaranteeing mutually assured destruction was the only way to prevent all nuclear attacks.
If they don't respond quick enough mutually assured destruction quickly becomes America only destruction. No doubt any all out attack would quickly aim to incapacitate the other sides ability to respond.
How is America only destruction worse than mutual destruction? That's what I'm saying, it's not a
humanistic or broadly moral outlook
Edit I’m not talking about hitting strategic targets (do those really require H-bombs anyway?). And thanks for clarifying that the lives of citizens in allied countries are worth so much more than Russian citizens.
Well, supposing motivation to totally destroy a country, allowing both to take out each others military installations may result in less loss of life that one side being totally dominant. Obviously either situation is beyond terrible.
Nuclear weapons (and all other sufficiently powerful weapons) really do suck.
Since it would be very hard, though, for nations to keep enough around for mutually assured destruction without anyone noticing (or so I think) I would think that disarmament is not an entirely crazy idea. I would even assume that an agreement by the US, Russia and China would be sufficient. (I’m not sure to what extent Pakistan and India can threaten the rest of the World and I really don’t think Israel and North Korea matter. I’m also pretty sure that France and the UK would follow the US because they would look pretty stupid if they wouldn’t.)
Given the amount of American military infrastructure that was in the UK (and other allies) during the cold war any attack on the United States would almost certainly have included missile and bomber attacks on the allies.
Also with the fact that most Western European countries are quite small and densely populated compared to the United States and the Soviet Union the carnage here would have been indescribable (although if you want a feeling for what a "best case" attack might have been like feel free to watch Threads).
Thats the error nobody ever see in the MAD scenario - until the missiles are launched, it is absolutely in the interest of both sides to threaten to launch in the event the other side does so.
The moment the missiles are launched however, the side that didn't launch no longer has any advantage to launching a counter strike (assuming an all out strike was launched, not just one with a few missiles) and the leaders have every advantage to broker a deal for refuge in the other country, as theirs will soon be uninhabitable.
There have been hints that a number of politicians who might have had to issue a retaliation order might have refused to do so from purely moral reasons.
In Richard Rhodes Arsenals of Folly a close adviser to Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying:
"I think deep down he doubted that he could bring himself to strike another country with [nuclear weapons]"
Somewhat to my surprise, I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.
“I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.”
That’s definitely what you want everyone to think. If I ever were in such a position of power I would leave no doubt about my will to strike back and in the critical moment don’t do it. I have no trouble believing that some other people think just like that.
>The moment the missiles are launched however, the side that didn't launch no longer has any advantage to launching a counter strike
My keen-jerk reaction is this: If your opponent wins without retaliation then they have probably won power over the whole globe. The hope of retaliation presumably would be to allow your allies, your nearest neighbours in cultural/ideological terms, to win the war despite you having won the battle.
Yes, winning the war might mean being the only few survivors in a world that was practically wrecked and having to start from nearly nothing to rebuild. But your own ideologies would be more likely to "win" if you retaliated, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Developm...